Can routine clinical data identify older patients at risk of poor healthcare outcomes on admission to hospital?

Facilitators and Barriers to Nurses Screening for Frailty in Acute Care in a Provincial Health-Care System: a Survey Study Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework

Background

Older adults living with frailty represent the largest population of hospitalized patients in Canada, but they do not always receive the quality of care needed. Nurses are well-positioned to screen for frailty, but current frailty screening practices are poorly understood.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study was conducted over a six-week period with nurses from Alberta, Canada working in acute care with older adults. Demographics were descriptively reported. Frailty screening methods were quantified on 5-point frequency scales, reported descriptively and compared by practice area using linear regression. The top-five mean scores from a 43-item, 6-point Likert-type questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were compared by practice area.

Results

Frailty screening by clinical impression was "usually" used (median = 4, IQR = 4-5), while tools were "rarely" used (median = 2, IQR = 1-3). Medical and/or surgical nursing had higher general frailty screening tool use (β = 0.81, r = .31, p < .001), but no significant (p > .05) differences for using clinical impression, or preference of screening method. The top facilitator was the disbelief that frailty screening negatively impacts relationships with older adults. The top barrier was belief that conducting frailty screening was routine. Nursing practice area influenced frailty screening beliefs.

Conclusions

There is an opportunity to implement frailty screening tools into the nursing practice of Alberta' nurses working in acute care. Frailty screening tools that become routine have greater likelihood for utilization. Nursing practice areas may have unique situations that require tailored approached to tool implementation.

Conceptualizations of clinical decision-making: a scoping review in geriatric emergency medicine

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision-making (CDM) is an important competency for young doctors especially under complex and uncertain conditions in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM). However, research in this field is characterized by vague conceptualizations of CDM. To evolve and evaluate evidence-based knowledge of CDM, it is important to identify different definitions and their operationalizations in studies on GEM.

OBJECTIVE

A scoping review of empirical articles was conducted to provide an overview of the documented evidence of findings and conceptualizations of CDM in GEM.

METHODS

A detailed search for empirical studies focusing on CDM in a GEM setting was conducted in PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, EMBASE and Web of Science. In total, 52 publications were included in the analysis, utilizing a data extraction sheet, following the PRISMA guidelines. Reported outcomes were summarized.

RESULTS

Four themes of operationalization of CDM emerged: CDM as dispositional decisions, CDM as cognition, CDM as a model, and CDM as clinical judgement. Study results and conclusions naturally differed according to how CDM was conceptualized. Thus, frailty-heuristics lead to biases in treatment of geriatric patients and the complexity of this patient group was seen as a challenge for young physicians engaging in CDM.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review summarizes how different studies in GEM use the term CDM. It provides an analysis of findings in GEM and call for more stringent definitions of CDM in future research, so that it might lead to better clinical practice.

Computer screening for palliative care needs in primary care: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Though the majority of people could benefit from palliative care before they die, most do not receive this approach, especially those with multimorbidity and frailty. GPs find it difficult to identify such patients.

AIM

To refine and evaluate the utility of a computer application (AnticiPal) to help primary care teams screen their registered patients for people who could benefit from palliative care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods study of eight GP practices in Scotland, conducted in 2016-2017.

METHOD

After a search development cycle the authors adopted a mixed-methods approach, combining analysis of the number of people identified by the search with qualitative observations of the computer search as used by primary care teams, and interviews with professionals and patients.

RESULTS

The search identified 0.8% of 62 708 registered patients. A total of 27 multidisciplinary meetings were observed, and eight GPs and 10 patients were interviewed. GPs thought the search identified many unrecognised patients with advanced multimorbidity and frailty, but were concerned about workload implications of assessment and care planning. Patients and carers endorsed the value of proactive identification of people with advanced illness.

CONCLUSION

GP practices can use computer searching to generate lists of patients for review and care planning. The challenges of starting a conversation about the future remain. However, most patients regard key components of palliative care (proactive planning, including sharing information with urgent care services) as important. Screening for people with deteriorating health at risk from unplanned care is a current focus for quality improvement and should not be limited by labelling it solely as 'palliative care'.

Implementation of grip strength measurement in medicine for older people wards as part of routine admission assessment: identifying facilitators and barriers using a theory-led intervention

Background

Low grip strength in older inpatients is associated with poor healthcare outcomes including longer length of stay and mortality. Measuring grip strength is simple and inexpensive. However, it is not routinely used in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate the implementation of grip strength measurement into routine clinical practice.

Methods

This implementation study was a mixed methods study based in five acute medical wards for older people in one UK hospital. Intervention design and implementation evaluation were based on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). A training program was developed and delivered to enable staff to measure grip strength and use a care plan for patients with low grip strength. Routine implementation and monitoring was assessed using the “implementation outcome variables” proposed by WHO: adoption, coverage, acceptability, fidelity, and costs analysis. Enablers and barriers of implementation were identified.

Results

One hundred fifty-five nursing staff were trained, 63% in just 3 weeks. Adoption and monthly coverage of grip strength measurement varied between 25 and 80% patients across wards. 81% of female patients and 75% of male patients assessed had low grip strength (< 27 kg for men and < 16 kg for women). Staff and patients found grip measurement easy, cheap and potentially beneficial in identifying high-risk patients. The total cost of implementation across five wards over 12 months was less than £2302. Using NPT, interviews identified enablers and barriers. Enablers included: highly motivated ward champions, managerial support, engagement strategies, shared commitment, and integration into staff and ward daily routines. Barriers included lack of managerial and staff support, and high turnover of staff, managers and champions.

Conclusions

Training a large number of nurses to routinely implement grip strength measurement of older patients was feasible, acceptable and inexpensive. Champions’ motivation, managerial support, and shared staff commitment were important for the uptake and normalisation of grip strength measurement. A high percentage of older patients were identified to be at risk of poor healthcare outcomes and would benefit from nutritional and exercise interventions. Measuring grip strength in these patients could provide an opportunity to identify those with normal grip strength for fast tracking through admission to discharge thereby reducing length of stay.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCTO2447445. Registered May 18, 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0768-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.